August Jobs Report

[DefenseisDesire]

I thought I heard yesterday on Bloomberg some discussion of the Verizon strike having something to do with these numbers being out of whack. Can't remember whether it was out of whack good or out of whack bad.

That's true. It was a bad out of whack, I think it coated like 47,000 jobs to the total. Nevertheless jobs have to be created at a rate of over 100,000 a month to make a dent in the UE rate. That is why im skeptical of no increase in the rate.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

if you are looking for a job and are not finding one, you get counted on the UE rate. If you were looking for a job and now you are not (gave up) and you have "retired" (like lots of people) you do not get counted toward the UE rate.

So us adding zero jobs and the UE rate remained steady= lots of people dropping out of the work force because nobody is hiring = lots of pissed off people = Obama losing in a landslide in 2012

 

[Vol423]

I haven't seen the full report, but if payrolls were flat, it's very plausible that there would be no movement in the UE rate. I haven't seen anything that states we shed jobs.

Even if we lost 10k, it's likely the rate wouldn't move.

No chance. The workforce constantly grows due to students graduating from school and, more importantly, immigration (legal and illegal).

 

[sjt18]

I wonder if we are going to get to see the amount of government or private/government contracted jobs lost when budget cuts kick in. I know a lot of people in Oak Ridge working for private firms performing gov't contracts.

There is no question there could be some short term pain as the economy adjusts. But we have to transfer resources from non-productive to wealth producing enterprises and jobs.

Imagine you have a communal farm. Some people make things, some grow crops, some distribute goods from one producer to another for consumption, some people perform svcs like guarding/road maint, and some people... you just let eat out of the goodness of your heart even though they contribute nothing. If you get to the point where so many people are guards and non-productive consumers that the producers cannot keep up.... you have to transfer some labor resources.

On a national scale, the same logic works. We have to have fewer gov't employees and contractors and more jobs involved in building/selling consumer products/svcs.

 

[HSVol]

No chance. The workforce constantly grows due to students graduating from school and, more importantly, immigration (legal and illegal).

Not to be overly argumentative, but, IMO, your argument is ideologically motivated rather than an objective analysis regarding the calculation of the unemployment rate. I'm not flaming you or criticizing you, but I just don't believe what you have said is correct in this instance.

What you have said is correct over a longer time horizon, but not on a month-to-month basis. If you look at the figures year over year, then this argument would hold water. However, should not appreciably impact the figures one month to the next.

 

[Gramps]

if you are looking for a job and are not finding one, you get counted on the UE rate. If you were looking for a job and now you are not (gave up) and you have "retired" (like lots of people) you do not get counted toward the UE rate.

So us adding zero jobs and the UE rate remained steady= lots of people dropping out of the work force because nobody is hiring = lots of pissed off people = Obama losing in a landslide in 2012

I would not bet on that just yet...

Obama will come out with a new big spending plan next week that will include a lot of shovel ready jobs.

The GOP in the house will say NO WAY before he starts reading his speech.

Obama will sell the big problem is the far right that is more focused on appeasing the far right of the GOP instead of being willing to solve the problems.

He won't have to work to hard to sell this .
The polling done in August shows congress with a 10-14% approval rating with Obama poliing at 42-46% .

Grover Norquist and the T Party is going to put Obama in for 4 more years.

 

[utvolpj]

they don't have to say no way they just need to use his own words

"there's no such thing as shovel-ready projects."

 

[utvolpj]

“With today’s jobs report, the worst in a year, one has to wonder what it will take to make the President and Congress admit that they are doing all the wrong things. Government does not create jobs, it kills jobs. Yet, the White House says the answer is to pass a highway bill so they can ‘stimulate’ construction jobs. Washington has stimulated us to death, and it has to stop. Provide certainty for employers, stop the insane spending, and reform the tax code. Do those things, and the private sector will do the job creation. We have let the myth of government jobs programs go too far, and America is suffering as a result. We don’t need more prime time speeches — we need government to just get out of the way.”

-Gary Johnson

 

[Vol423]

Not to be overly argumentative, but, IMO, your argument is ideologically motivated rather than an objective analysis regarding the calculation of the unemployment rate. I'm not flaming you or criticizing you, but I just don't believe what you have said is correct in this instance.

What you have said is correct over a longer time horizon, but not on a month-to-month basis. If you look at the figures year over year, then this argument would hold water. However, should not appreciably impact the figures one month to the next.

You're wrong.

"One needs at least 175,000 and some estimate up to 375,000 permanent full time jobs, added each month just to keep pace with U.S. civilian workforce population growth. That's not general population, that's the group needing a job."

Unemployment 8.8% for March 2011 | The Economic Populist

This is just one quick link that I found. If you actually read the stories that come out about the unemployment figures or listen to decent news coverage about it they will almost always state that economists state that monthly job growth has to exceed 200K to 250K just to keep up with growth in the size of the workforce.

 

[HSVol]

This is just one quick link that I found. If you actually read the stories that come out about the unemployment figures or listen to decent news coverage about it they will almost always state that economists state that monthly job growth has to exceed 200K to 250K just to keep up with growth in the size of the workforce.

Would having a close contact working at the Labor Department be a suitable substitute for my lack of having read internet articles?

 

[Vol423]

Would having a close contact working at the Labor Department be a suitable substitute for my lack of having read internet articles?

No. The government lies in order to spin whatever positive story that they want.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Gramps... The POTUS cant win by blaiming others for the countrys problems. People will see right through that BS. Your polling numbers are old. He currently has a 38% approval with a 60% disapproval. He wont win FL, NC, VA, PA, OH, and MI. If half of those states fall to the Rs, Obama loses bad.

A poll came out today showing Rep Weiners old seat in the Bronx is leaning to the Repubs. The Bronx is leaning to the Rs! Thats how bad it is.

 

[HSVol]

No. The government lies in order to spin whatever positive story that they want.

:lol: Thanks for informing me.

 

[Gramps]

Gramps... The POTUS cant win by blaiming others for the countrys problems. People will see right through that BS. Your polling numbers are old. He currently has a 38% approval with a 60% disapproval. He wont win FL, NC, VA, PA, OH, and MI. If half of those states fall to the Rs, Obama loses bad.

A poll came out today showing Rep Weiners old seat in the Bronx is leaning to the Repubs. The Bronx is leaning to the Rs! Thats how bad it is.

Polling is not old.

Gallup Daily.. updated at 1 PM today has Obama at 42% approval 50% disapprove

You cannot go by POTUS polling in August of 3rd year of Presidency and tell who is going to win in November of next year.

Example:
These are Gallup polls.
August of 3rd year in office:

Reagan was at 43% won in a Landslide
HW Bush was at 71% lost to Bill Clinton
Clinton was at 41% won 2nd term
GW Bush was at 60% won 2nd term
Obama is at 42%
LINK : Gallup.Com Politics News ? Political Views, Job Approval Ratings, Insights for Leaders

Here is linlk to Real Clear Politics:

RealClearPolitics - RealClearPolitics Poll Averages

Average # 8/16-9/01 Obama approve 43.7 % disapprove 51.3%

Average # 8/01-8/22 Congress approve 12.3%
disapprove 84%

Obama numbers are bad but congress numbers are terrible.
With over 14 months to go anything can happen. Previous polling shows that, Reagan was polling about the same as Obama and he won in a hugh landslide.

Bush 1 was at 71% approval and he lost.
14 months in politics is a long time.

I'm just saying with the money Obama has and the terrible way the hugh majority of citizens are viewing congress, he can sucessfully place blame on congress for not being willing to negotiate and can win reelection.

IMO every politician in Washington that is running for reelection in 2012 should be replaced... Dem , GOP or I.
They all need to just go away.

The problem is, it doesn't matter how good or bad a member of congress is doing in a lot of districts. It just matters if a D or R is after their name. People will vote strickly party lines which IMO opinion is not to bright!!

 

[volinbham]

Theme song for the jobs report

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvc2PPTlW7k[/youtube]

 

[BigPapaVol]

Polling is not old.

Gallup Daily.. updated at 1 PM today has Obama at 42% approval 50% disapprove

You cannot go by POTUS polling in August of 3rd year of Presidency and tell who is going to win in November of next year.

Example:
These are Gallup polls.
August of 3rd year in office:

Reagan was at 43% won in a Landslide
HW Bush was at 71% lost to Bill Clinton
Clinton was at 41% won 2nd term
GW Bush was at 60% won 2nd term
Obama is at 42%
LINK : Gallup.Com Politics News ? Political Views, Job Approval Ratings, Insights for Leaders

Here is linlk to Real Clear Politics:

RealClearPolitics - RealClearPolitics Poll Averages

Average # 8/16-9/01 Obama approve 43.7 % disapprove 51.3%

Average # 8/01-8/22 Congress approve 12.3%
disapprove 84%

Obama numbers are bad but congress numbers are terrible.
With over 14 months to go anything can happen. Previous polling shows that, Reagan was polling about the same as Obama and he won in a hugh landslide.

Bush 1 was at 71% approval and he lost.
14 months in politics is a long time.

I'm just saying with the money Obama has and the terrible way the hugh majority of citizens are viewing congress, he can sucessfully place blame on congress for not being willing to negotiate and can win reelection.

IMO every politician in Washington that is running for reelection in 2012 should be replaced... Dem , GOP or I.
They all need to just go away.

The problem is, it doesn't matter how good or bad a member of congress is doing in a lot of districts. It just matters if a D or R is after their name. People will vote strickly party lines which IMO opinion is not to bright!!

make yourself feel better if you like, but any Obama win is an indictment of the opposition candidates and our broken two party / dancing with the media system.

 

[sjt18]

Obama numbers are bad but congress numbers are terrible.

Oft repeated and absolutely meaningless canard.

I can all but guarantee that the composite of the approval ratings of Congressmen within their states or districts would be better than Obama's approval rating.

Congressmen usually reflect their district decently well. All the low congressional approval rating means is that Dem districts blame Republicans they didn't elect and Rep districts do the reverse. There aren't that many "swing" districts left. The Dems will be just as, if not more, vulnerable in the ones they hold. The Senate is very likely to change hands barring a miracle by which unemployment goes down to nil and the Fed gov't turns a surplus.

I agree that Obama can still win. He is still getting considerable help from the press. He's having to be more overt with his cozy relationships among the "rich" but they're pouring money into his campaign. BO has the money and the press support to blame everyone else and get away with it. Hopefully the public is smarter than to fall for it.